Back to Search Start Over

Integrating ongoing biodiversity monitoring: potential benefits and methods

Authors :
Szabolcs Lengyel
Klaus Henle
Pierre-Yves Henry
Valerija Babij
Bernd Gruber
Piotr Nowicki
Jean Clobert
Romain Julliard
Tatjana Čelik
Dirk S. Schmeller
Jovan Hadzi Institute of Biology
Research Institute
Department of Conservation Biology
Mécanismes adaptatifs : des organismes aux communautés (MAOAC)
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 (UPMC)
Conservation des espèces, Restauration et Suivi des Populations (CERSP)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 (UPMC)-Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN)
Department of Zoology
Université
Départment of Ecology
UBIVERSITE
Institue of Environmental Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF KRAKOW
Station d’Ecologie Expérimentale du CNRS à Moulis (SEEM)
Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3)
Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN)-Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6 (UPMC)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
Source :
Biodiversity and Conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation, Springer Verlag, 2008, pp.3357-3382. ⟨10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1⟩, Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008, 17 (14), pp.3357-3382. ⟨10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1⟩
Publication Year :
2008
Publisher :
HAL CCSD, 2008.

Abstract

International audience; Halting the loss of biodiversity comes along with the need to quantify biodiversity composition and dynamics at large spatial and temporal scales. Highly standardized, international monitoring networks would be ideal, but they do not exist yet. If we are to assess changes in biodiversity now, combining output available from ongoing monitoring initiatives is the only option. However, integration of biodiversity information across schemes is still very poorly developed. In this paper, we outline practical issues to be considered when planning to combine existing monitoring information. First, we provide an overview of avenues for integration along the four dimensions that characterize a monitoring design: sample size, biological coverage, spatial coverage and temporal coverage. We also emphasize that complementarity in monitoring targets across schemes enables to describe complex processes of biodiversity dynamics, e.g. through relating species traits to the impacts of environmental changes. Second, we review some methods to overcome differences in designs among monitoring schemes, such as site selection, post-stratification and measurement error. Finally, we point out some commonly used statistical methods that are at hand for combining data or parameter estimates. We especially emphasize the possible levels of data integration (raw data, parameter estimates, or effect size estimates), and the largely under-exploited potential of meta-analysis methods and weighted analyses. This contribution aims to bolster the practice and use of integration of ongoing monitoring initiatives for biodiversity assessment.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
09603115 and 15729710
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Biodiversity and Conservation, Biodiversity and Conservation, Springer Verlag, 2008, pp.3357-3382. ⟨10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1⟩, Biodiversity and Conservation, 2008, 17 (14), pp.3357-3382. ⟨10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1⟩
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....da0b0b3ce6558b206ab2c92a03aee98b
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9417-1⟩